Transcript Highlights:

• So as you can see there, the majority of these costs go to state-mandated surcharges, and some of these
• It wouldn't even cover the first part and the second part, not including the surcharges and stuff, with
• I don't really have a question, but the Clean Elections Fund, of course, too, has a surcharge on here
• Representative Contreras, a lot of these surcharges were added by the legislature, and some were done
• And seeing the surcharges and the assessments that are needed, we need to figure out where this money

Bills: SB1010, SB1024, SB1205, SB1232, SB1366, SB1552, SB1624, SCM1002, SCM1006, SCR1004

Keywords: Charlie Kirk, Loop 202, Arizona highways, transportation, renaming, roadable aircraft, registration, vehicle title, license plates, aviation safety, motor vehicle booting, private property, fees, dispute process, regulations, outdoor advertising, military compatibility, zoning, electronic signage, permitting

Summary: The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee heard a series of transportation, traffic enforcement, and memorial bills. SB 1024, dealing with licensing and registration for roadable aircraft, drew a question about where vehicle license tax revenue would go, but with no sponsor present the committee still advanced it on a do pass recommendation by a 3-2 vote. SB 1205, which creates rules for private-property vehicle booting, was supported by industry and sponsor testimony as a consumer-protection framework modeled on towing laws; it passed 5-0 after discussion of time limits, recordkeeping, dispute resolution, and penalties. SB 1366, creating a temporary study committee on public-property towing and impound practices, was presented as a bipartisan, data-gathering measure and passed 5-0. SB 1232, a billboard/outdoor advertising zoning bill tied to military compatibility and ADOT permitting, was described as a technical cleanup measure negotiated with ADOT and local stakeholders; it passed unanimously 6-0. The committee spent the most time on SB 1624, which would cap photo-enforcement civil penalties at $75 and limit the effect of photo-radar violations on licensing and insurance. Supporters argued the bill would simplify enforcement and reduce reliance on cameras, while opponents from insurers and local governments warned it would mask risk, shift costs to other drivers, and reduce revenue for several state funds and local programs. An amendment was adopted to treat excessive speeding caught by photo enforcement as a class 3 misdemeanor and direct $15 of the penalty to the Peace Officer Training Equipment Fund. The amended bill then passed 4-2, with members citing concerns about school zones, revenue impacts, and the role of photo enforcement. The committee also advanced SCR 1004, a voter referral that would let Arizona voters decide whether cities may continue using photo enforcement; it passed 4-2 after testimony that it was a negotiated compromise preserving local control while requiring a future local vote in affected cities. The final items were memorials naming highways. SCM 1002 would rename a portion of State Route 77 the L.F. Quinn Memorial Highway, and SCM 1006 would rename a portion of U.S. Route 70 the PFC Michael A. Nolene Memorial Highway. Both were described as constituent-driven and appropriate under naming procedures, with members noting Quinn’s long-ago death and Nolene’s service as the first Native American to die in the Gulf War. Both memorials passed unanimously 6-0. Earlier in the meeting, SB 1010 and SB 1552 were announced as held, and the committee adjourned after completing the remaining agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• It is really about the 12 cents per access line surcharge.
• I just wanted to address the concern regarding the surcharge being collected, but not the full amount
• The CPUC votes on the allocation amongst the surcharges that are collected within their public... ...
• So the percentage of the surcharge that is collected and allocated towards the DDSP, Deaf and Disabled
• Yeah, I just want to say there's a surcharge aspect to it that I agree with Assemblymember Lackey: we

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And then what I refer to as the mystery gasoline surcharge.
• What you will see is that actually going back to well before the mystery gasoline surcharge appeared
• And then my last question, Professor, I've been following the mystery surcharge work for some years.
• I think that the mystery gasoline surcharge does exist in a couple other states.
• So this is not the mystery gas surcharge, the retail issues.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy held a hearing on California’s petroleum supply and price volatility amid the Iran conflict and Strait of Hormuz disruptions. Committee members and administration witnesses focused first on short-term supply conditions: the California Energy Commission said crude and refined-product imports were still arriving at healthy levels, West Coast inventories were generally adequate, and there was no expected near-term supply shortfall, though diesel inventories were tighter than gasoline or jet fuel. Officials said California’s reliance on imports has grown as in-state refining capacity has declined, and they described ongoing work to track import flows, inventories, refinery outages, and pricing. The Division of Petroleum Market Oversight said the conflict was driving real price increases, but also highlighted California’s persistent branded-gasoline premium and unusually wide station-to-station price dispersion. DPMO reported that some major-brand stations were charging far above the statewide average, that several outlier stations reduced prices after contact from the division, and that investigations and subpoenas were ongoing. Professor Severin Borenstein argued that while crude oil is a global price driver, much of California’s higher retail price gap is a downstream “mystery gasoline surcharge,” not explained by crude costs alone, and he said the state should focus on imports, port and storage capacity, and competition rather than expecting refinery subsidies or an E15 blend to solve the problem. Industry and labor witnesses took different positions on the causes and solutions. The Western States Petroleum Association said state policy had weakened California’s refining system, making it more dependent on long, fragile supply chains and vulnerable to global shocks, and urged the state to protect remaining refining capacity and reduce regulatory burdens. United Steelworkers Local 675 emphasized that refinery reliability and staffing matter for market stability. Members pressed witnesses on whether California should set fuel-supply targets, how to prepare beyond the next six weeks, whether more import dependence increases risk, and what additional data or authority the state needs. No formal votes or actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• FY25, the surcharges were $138.8 million. The provider surcharges...
• The surcharges were $138.8 million. The provider surcharges were $19 million.
• The hospital surcharges were $119.8 million.
• The surcharges were $138.8 million. The provider surcharges were $19 million.
• The hospital surcharges were $119.8 million.

Bills: HB1

Keywords: feed bill, legislative appropriations, legislative branch, New Mexico Legislature, general fund, legislative council service, legislative finance committee, legislative education study committee, house chief clerk, senate chief clerk, per diem, mileage, session expenses, interim committees, district staff, capitol complex, capital outlay data system, legislative processing system, redistricting, census redistricting

Transcript Highlights:

• What are the eligible things we can fund with the surcharge?
• Is there already, in anticipation of an increase in surcharge to cover this BCP?
• So if there's a way, I mean, I'd be really interested in the surcharge.
• AB 988 allows for a surcharge of up to 30 cents.
• So the surcharge was reduced this year. It was eight cents, the first two years.

Summary: The subcommittee heard presentations from the Department of State Hospitals (DSH), the Commission for Behavioral Health, and the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) on budget proposals and implementation updates. DSH outlined its proposed 2026-27 budget, including funding for patient operating expenses, IST solutions savings, conditional release program costs, LPS bed allocation changes, electrical infrastructure projects at Napa and Patton, SB 380 transitional housing feasibility work, and expanded dental services at Metropolitan and Patton. DSH also reported that it has met court-ordered IST treatment benchmarks in the Stiavedi v. Clinton case, with average time to initiate treatment down to about five days and pending placements reduced to roughly 250, while noting that Proposition 36 could increase referrals and SB 1323 may divert some individuals earlier into community-based treatment. Members asked about rising outside hospitalization costs, Medicare enrollment, the timing and structure of capital projects, and whether IST solution funds are being fully used; DSH said the savings reflect slower-than-expected ramp-up of community programs and that the Central California FACT replacement program is still on track for January 2027 activation. The Commission for Behavioral Health described its role under the Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA), including data, evaluation, grantmaking, technical assistance, and transparency work. It highlighted the new statewide Innovation Partnership Fund, a five-year, $20 million-per-year program with small and large grant categories; the first RFA drew strong interest, with more than 400 questions and over 1,000 bidders’ conference participants. The Commission also discussed a proposed extension to spend down about $4.1 million remaining for the Alcove Youth Drop-in Center grants so sites can finish implementation and Stanford can complete the final evaluation. Members asked about grant duration, whether projects can be renewed, what qualifies as innovation, and whether the fund could support service delivery rather than awareness campaigns or training; the Commission said awards are expected to be three-year contracts and that proposals must be new or meaningfully expanded approaches that support BHSA priority populations. DHCS reviewed major behavioral health changes under CalAIM and BH Connect, including peer support, mobile crisis, contingency management, traditional health care practices for tribal members, updated specialty mental health access criteria, and new substance use treatment standards based on ASAM’s fourth edition. DHCS reported strong contingency management results, with more than 13,000 members served and 95% testing negative for stimulant use during treatment, and said 21 Indian health care providers have been approved to offer traditional health care practices. It also described BH Connect initiatives such as the $1.9 billion access reform and outcomes incentive program, workforce investments, evidence-based practice expansion, IMD participation by four counties, and transitional rent services. On BHSA implementation, DHCS said it is not tracking individual county contract cuts but is monitoring county plans and statewide outcomes, while stakeholders raised concerns about local prevention and service gaps. DHCS also outlined its H.R. 1 implementation strategy, including outreach, streamlined renewals, exemptions for disabled, substance use, and medically frail individuals, and proposed clinic navigator and outreach funding; it said it has not yet produced a focused estimate of H.R. 1 impacts on behavioral health populations. The discussion ended with DHCS noting that B-CHIP bond funding has supported 437 infrastructure projects, creating 546 new or expanded facilities and more than 9,500 residential beds across the state.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you, and thank you for the question on the surcharge.
• Think of the surcharge as the cash flow. The funds are six public purpose programs.
• There is lead time necessary to increase surcharges.
• So will we assume the surcharge will increase beyond $1.25?
• It is fair to expect that the surcharge will increase.

Summary: The committee first heard Issue 1 on trailer bill language to redirect funding for emergency demand-response programs. The Department of Finance proposed using about $26.9 million in General Fund originally set aside for the Distributed Energy Backup Assets program to bolster the Demand-Side Grid Support Program for summer 2026, and using about $70 million in CalCHAP interest to support ratepayer-funded demand response in summers 2027 and 2028. The CEC and CPUC said they are working on a transition from DSGS to ELRP or a successor program, while the LAO noted the General Fund money would otherwise revert to savings. Members pressed the administration on whether demand response remains important, whether DSGS has been successful, and whether the state should keep funding it through the CEC rather than shifting to a ratepayer-funded CPUC program. The CEC and CPUC said the programs are not directly comparable, emphasized different cost structures and enrollment metrics, and said a CPUC rulemaking is underway with a proposed decision expected in Q3 2026. No vote was taken in the transcript. The committee then took up Issue 2, a budget proposal tied to SB 254 and the new transmission accelerator. GoBiz and the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank described a five-year, roughly $26 million request to staff and administer the accelerator and manage Proposition 4 and AB 1207 funds for transmission financing. Members asked about state liability, ownership of financed lines, FERC revenue requirements, and whether the program would help underserved regions and offshore wind development. Staff explained that the accelerator would only consider projects already identified through CAISO’s competitive transmission planning process, and that state financing would be a small portion of large projects intended to lower overall costs to ratepayers. The LAO said it had no specific concerns but urged the Legislature to ensure the final language matches its intent. The committee also heard Issue 3 on petroleum market oversight. The CEC and its Division of Petroleum Market Oversight requested additional positions and funding to implement ABX2-1 and continue work on supply stabilization, refinery monitoring, and transportation fuels analysis. Members questioned why the work was funded through the Energy Resources Programs Account, whether existing staff from the paused price-gouging work could be reassigned, and whether the program had produced evidence of price gouging or improved supply conditions. CEC and Finance said the new positions are needed because the workload has expanded, while some existing staff remain on related analysis and reporting duties. The discussion ended without a vote in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• And I'll use the specific number in terms of this conversation about surcharges.
• And I'll use the specific number in terms of this conversation about surcharges.
• You know, it's unique for our industry that, you know, the surcharge elements that exist right now do
• The challenge is, from a wireless perspective, that that surcharge The challenge is, from a wireless
• perspective, that that surcharge really does directly impact our consumers.

Summary: The Assembly Communications and Conveyance Committee held an informational hearing on the state of broadband affordability in California. Chair Tasha Berner said the committee was examining how broadband prices, access, and affordability are affecting households, especially after the end of the federal Affordable Connectivity Program and amid concerns about federal resistance to state broadband regulation. She noted the committee’s continued interest in policy options for 2026 and referenced prior legislation, including AB 353, that would have required affordable home internet as a condition of doing business in California. Industry witnesses from U.S. Telecom and CTIA argued that broadband and wireless prices have generally fallen in real terms even as inflation and other household costs have risen, citing competition, infrastructure investment, and faster speeds as the main drivers. They said California’s higher costs are tied to permitting delays, taxes, copper theft, and legacy obligations such as COLR requirements, and they urged the Legislature to preserve market incentives, reduce fees and regulatory burdens, and support infrastructure deployment. They also discussed fixed wireless access, federal BEAD funding, and Universal Service Fund reform, arguing that more entities benefiting from networks, including tech platforms, should contribute to support programs. Consumer and public-interest witnesses presented a different view, saying California still has a serious affordability and adoption problem, especially for low-income households. Sunny McPhee of the California Emerging Technology Fund said broadband adoption has improved dramatically over time, but about 500,000 households remain offline or underconnected and many low-income households still pay above the FCC affordability benchmark. Ernesto Falcon of the CPUC Public Advocates Office said California’s market is losing its competitive edge, with prices higher than in other states and meaningful price pressure coming mainly from fiber competition at the gigabit tier. He said roughly 4.8 million Californians are limited to one gigabit option and estimated that more competition could save consumers more than $1 billion annually. Both witnesses emphasized the need for stronger transparency, targeted subsidies, and a permanent affordability solution, including extending and refining the CPUC broadband Lifeline pilot and advancing SB 716. Public commenters, including representatives from cable providers, nonprofits, and digital equity organizations, largely supported SB 716 and a permanent broadband affordability program. Several urged the committee to remove a cap on the Lifeline program, expand the CPUC pilot, and invest in digital navigators, outreach, and enrollment assistance. The hearing ended without a vote or formal action, after the chair thanked the witnesses and public commenters for their testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• So then when you're talking about waste disposal surcharge charges, you have to charge the same surcharge
• So then when you're talking about waste disposal surcharge charges, you have to charge the same surcharge
• So then when you're talking about waste disposal surcharge charges, you have to charge the same surcharge
• So then when you're talking about waste disposal surcharge charges, you have to charge the same surcharge
• So then when you're talking about waste disposal surcharge charges, you have to charge the same surcharge

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House Bill 2 provisions affecting the New Hampshire Retirement System, focusing on Group 2/Tier B retirement changes in pages 25 through 39 of the bill. NHRS Executive Director Jan Goodwin and deputy chief counsel Mark Kavanaugh explained that the 2025 bill is largely similar to prior versions and to HB 727, with the main difference being that the 2025 version does not include the earlier increase in the maximum benefit. They also said the fiscal note for HB 2 is based on earlier actuarial work and that an updated valuation was expected later in the week. A major topic was whether the bill accidentally removed an anti-spiking or special-duty compensation limit. NHRS said the omission appears to be a scrivener’s error caused by moving language between Group 1 and Group 2 definitions, and they planned to flag it in the fiscal note. Members also reviewed the bill’s intent to restore Tier B members to pre-2011 benefit rules, including changes to earnable compensation, average final compensation, and the comp-over-base rule. Some members questioned whether restoring those older rules was appropriate, arguing the 2011 changes were meant to curb pension spiking and that undoing them could be problematic. The committee also discussed the bill’s cost and funding assumptions. NHRS said the 2025 bill would reduce unfunded actuarial liability by about $98.2 million and would have a more favorable effect than the 2023 version, while employer contribution impacts would remain relatively small. Members noted the bill assumes annual appropriations of $27.5 million for 10 years, but House Bill 1 currently provides only $5 million in the first year, and NHRS had not yet analyzed the effect of that shortfall. No votes were taken in the portion provided; the discussion was informational and focused on clarifying the bill’s language, intent, and fiscal impact.

Transcript Highlights:

• And the third Is the electric vehicle surcharge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chair, okay.
• Chairman, looking at the surcharge for EVs and hybrids.
• So, if I understood correctly, the surcharge for EVs would be 75 at registration time.
• So essentially 50 of what is the surcharge for the electric, the full electrics? Yeah.
• So I'm just curious how these fees or these surpluses or surcharges were arrived at.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So I'm going to use his nomenclature there: the mystery gasoline surcharge, or MGS.
• Here is the graph that shows the calculation of the mystery gasoline surcharge.
• So the question is, what changed in 2015 that made this mystery gasoline surcharge appear?
• the mystery gasoline surcharge for unbranded gasoline is 34 cents per gallon.
• Have you looked at that at all and seen if that helps explain a little bit the mystery surcharge?

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy held its annual oversight hearing on the transportation fuels sector, focused on California’s fuel transition, the announced refinery closures by Phillips 66 and Valero, and the potential effects on supply, prices, and the broader fuel system. Committee leadership said the state needs a system-wide transition plan rather than a piecemeal approach, and state witnesses from CARB, the CEC, and DPMO described the fuel market as a complex, interconnected ecosystem involving crude production, refining, storage, imports, and delivery. They emphasized that declining gasoline demand from EV adoption is occurring alongside shrinking in-state refining capacity, which could increase volatility and price spikes if not managed carefully. CARB Chair Liane Randolph reviewed the state’s climate and air-quality programs, including AB 32, SB 32, the 2022 scoping plan, the low-carbon fuel standard, and vehicle emissions rules. She said these policies have reduced emissions substantially but that California still faces major ozone and PM2.5 problems, especially in disadvantaged communities. Randolph also said federal actions challenging California waivers could complicate the state’s clean-air efforts, and she noted that while liquid fuels will still be needed in some sectors, the state must continue reducing fossil fuel dependence while protecting public health. CEC Vice Chair Siva Gunda and DPMO Director Ty Milder presented data on gasoline demand, refinery throughput, crude imports, and price differentials. Gunda said the Legislature’s special-session laws gave the agencies transparency and planning tools, and that the CEC is developing a fuels transition plan while evaluating whether any regulatory tools should be used. Milder previewed DPMO findings that Californians have paid a long-running “mystery gasoline surcharge” averaging 41 cents per gallon since 2015, with higher margins concentrated in branded gasoline and among vertically integrated firms. He said the data show a concentrated market with some refiners doing well and others struggling, and that DPMO will continue investigating price behavior, competition, and supply risks. Members pressed the witnesses on whether state regulations contributed to refinery exits or higher prices, and on whether the agencies had adequately analyzed consumer costs. Witnesses said they had not yet implemented the new permissive tools from SB X1-2 and AB X2-1 because they were still assessing risks and benefits, and they stressed that refinery closures and capital decisions are driven by broader market conditions as well as regulation. No vote was taken; the hearing was informational, with the committee seeking updates and urging the agencies to develop a practical transition strategy that balances affordability, reliability, climate goals, and worker/community protections.

Transcript Highlights:

• What are the eligible things we can fund with the surcharge?
• So if there's a way, I mean, I'd be really interested in the surcharge.
• AB 988 allows for a surcharge of up to 30 cents.
• You started talking about the surcharge part. Was it you that started talking about?
• So the surcharge was reduced this year. It was 8 cents the first two years.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The subcommittee heard updates from the Department of State Hospitals on its proposed 2026-27 budget, including a $3.2 billion total budget, patient-driven operating cost increases, savings in the IST solutions program, and progress in meeting the Stiavedi court-ordered 28-day treatment standard. DSH reported it has met court benchmarks, reduced the IST pending placement list from a pandemic high of 1,953 to about 250, and is now averaging about five days to initiate treatment. Members asked about the effects of Proposition 36 and SB 1323 on referrals, outside hospitalization costs, Medicare coverage, and whether IST solution funds were being overbudgeted; DSH said referrals are slightly down overall, outside medical costs are rising due to inflation and an aging population, and the IST savings reflect slower-than-expected activation of community programs rather than a service gap. The department also outlined proposed funding for electrical infrastructure upgrades at Napa and Patton, a feasibility study under SB 380 for transitional housing for the CONREP SVP program, and a dental services expansion at Metropolitan and Patton. The committee held those DSH items open after discussion. The Commission for Behavioral Health presented its role in overseeing the transition from MHSA to BHSA, including data, evaluation, transparency, grantmaking, and technical assistance. It described the new Innovation Partnership Fund, a statewide innovation grant program funded at up to $20 million annually for five years, with small and large grants, and said it had received strong interest ahead of the May 8 application deadline. Members asked about what qualifies as innovation, whether grants could be renewed, and how the state would ensure the program supports service delivery rather than general outreach or training. The commission also sought a liquidation deadline extension for up to $4.062 million in remaining Alcove Youth Drop-in Center funds so sites can finish implementation and Stanford can complete the final evaluation; that item was also held open. DHCS provided an overview of behavioral health policy changes under CalAIM and BH Connect, including peer support, mobile crisis, contingency management, traditional health care practices for tribal members, the access reform and outcomes incentive program, workforce investments, evidence-based practice expansion, IMD participation, transitional rent, and upcoming youth-focused guidance such as high-fidelity wraparound and activity funds. On BHSA implementation, DHCS said it is not tracking specific local program cuts, but is monitoring county plans and outcomes while noting that counties must still preserve Medi-Cal specialty mental health and DMC-ODS services. The department also discussed its H.R. 1 implementation strategy, including outreach, streamlined renewals, ex parte exemptions, and proposed clinic navigator and outreach funding to reduce Medi-Cal coverage loss, especially for people with behavioral health needs. In response to questions, DHCS said it has not produced a specific H.R. 1 impact estimate for county behavioral health populations, and later explained that counties can still use BHSA and other funding streams for prevention and early intervention while the state tracks impacts through integrated plans and new performance measures. The department also reported on BH-CHIP bond spending, saying it has awarded $5.8 billion for 437 infrastructure projects creating 546 new or expanded facilities and more than 9,553 residential beds, with tribal set-asides exceeding the original allotment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Think of the surcharge as the cash flow.
• There is lead time necessary to increase surcharges.
• There is lead time necessary to increase surcharges.
• There is lead time necessary to increase surcharges.
• It is fair to expect that the surcharge will increase.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard a budget item on demand-side grid support and emergency load flexibility funding. The Department of Finance proposed redirecting General Fund money for summer 2026 to the CEC’s Demand-Side Grid Support program and using accumulated CalCHAP interest to support a successor ratepayer-funded demand response program for summers 2027 and 2028. The CEC and CPUC said they are working on a transition from DSGS to ELRP or an equivalent program, while the LAO said the proposal mainly presents a choice between keeping the money in General Fund savings or using it for DSGS. Members pressed the administration on why DSGS should be sunset when it has higher enrollment and lower administrative costs than ELRP, and on whether the state should continue funding demand response at all. The CPUC argued ELRP and DSGS are not directly comparable, said it is pursuing a broader demand flexibility rulemaking, and noted a decision on a successor program is expected in Q3 2026. No vote was taken in the excerpt, but members signaled interest in keeping DSGS funding at the CEC. The second item concerned trailer bill language for the transmission accelerator program under SB 254 and Proposition 4. GoBiz and IBank described a new financing structure for major transmission projects selected through CAISO’s competitive planning process, with about $26 million in administrative resources over five years. The LAO raised no specific concerns but emphasized that this is the Legislature’s first appropriation for a new program and that the final language should clearly reflect legislative intent. Members asked about state liability, ownership, and how the financing would lower ratepayer costs; staff explained that state financing would cover only a portion of large projects and could reduce the amount included in utility rate base, with estimated lifetime savings varying widely. Members also discussed offshore wind transmission needs and asked for an update on related Proposition 4 funding. The final item covered CEC and DPMO budget requests related to petroleum market oversight and supply stabilization. The CEC requested funding for additional positions to implement AB X2-1 and related fuel market monitoring work, while DPMO sought to make a data specialist position permanent. The LAO said it found the staffing requests justified. Members questioned why the work is funded through the Energy Resources Programs Account, whether staff from paused price-gouging work could be reassigned, and what evidence had been found of price gouging or market manipulation. CEC and DPMO said their work on reporting, analysis, and supply stabilization continues, that some staff are still working on related analyses, and that they are preparing further workshops and recommendations. The discussion also touched on refinery closures, gasoline imports, and the state’s changing fuel supply conditions, but no formal action was taken in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• It is really about the 12-cent per access line surcharge.
• What I worry about is that we put the same level of surcharge, and what if the cost...
• What I worry about is that we put the same level of surcharge, and what if the cost decrease over time
• I just wanted to address the concern regarding the surcharge being collected but not the full amount
• And so the percentage of the surcharge that is collected as allocated towards the DDTP, the Deaf and

Summary: The hearing was an informational budget session on energy agency proposals, with no votes taken. Early discussion focused on Proposition 4 climate bond implementation, including funding for demand-side grid support, offshore wind development, and transmission financing. The Department of Finance said the budget includes allocations for demand-side grid support and offshore wind, but not yet for the $325 million transmission financing piece pending a required study. The Legislative Analyst’s Office urged the Legislature to consider whether to wait on offshore wind funding, whether to keep shifting funds into demand-side grid support, and how to direct future transmission financing. Members also raised concerns about local technical assistance for offshore wind, Salton Sea priorities, and the need for more information before final decisions. The California Energy Commission and CPUC then reviewed the broader energy package. The CEC highlighted the demand-side grid support program’s growth, distributed energy backup assets, long-duration storage, hydrogen grants, and the SIRP clean energy reliability program. CPUC testimony emphasized affordability, wildfire mitigation costs, rooftop solar cost shifts, and efforts to reduce rates while maintaining reliability and clean energy goals. Members questioned CPUC staffing, delays in proceedings, coordination with the CEC and CAISO, and the impact of rate increases on customers. The agencies also discussed the AB 3264 transmission financing study, with CPUC saying work on the study had already begun and was on track for the July 1 deadline. Several trailer bill and implementation items were also discussed. The committee reviewed a proposal to extend the Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program surcharge, with members split over whether it should be handled in budget trailer bill language or policy legislation; the administration said the surcharge supports a critical program serving about three-quarters of a million Californians. The committee also heard a CPUC data-sharing proposal to allow nondisclosure agreements for transmission and reliability data, which members generally supported as a technical fix. DWR explained a proposal to clarify language for the Electricity Supply Strategic Reliability Reserve so it can potentially sell three gas-fired units it owns, and the CEC presented a federal transmission grant proposal tied to grid-enhancing technologies and ratepayer cost recovery. Finally, the committee discussed California Lifeline and possible broadband pilot reforms in light of uncertainty around federal Universal Service Fund support, with CPUC saying it is exploring a statewide standalone broadband option for eligible customers.

Transcript Highlights:

• , the OSI should have to set those surcharges at the minimum rate.
• Two, they make up a lot of the surcharges over, Half the surcharges that are paid in.
• This would require the superintendent to set those surcharges at no less than what is recommended by
• My question for the Senator is on page 18 there is an addition that says the surcharge for hospitals
• and outpatient healthcare facilities shall be no less than the actuaries' recommended surcharge based

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• North Miami Beach also supports the statutory 25% outside city surcharge limit.
• Any discussion of affordability must consider the full cost stack, not just the utility surcharge.
• This bill also requires certain legacy surcharges tied to debt to be phased out as that debt is retired
• I'm thinking of it in a municipal scenario where we have a municipality that might be levying a surcharge
• You can also do a 25% surcharge. The additional 50% is if you held a public meeting, right?

Summary: The committee heard and advanced a wide range of bills, with several focused on water safety, utilities, and local government transparency. CS/SB 848 on stormwater treatment was explained as clarifying water quality credits and water quality enhancement areas, and it was reported favorably after one support appearance. SB 28, a claim bill for Reginald Jackson against the City of Lakeland arising from injuries caused by a police shooting, was also reported favorably. CS/CS/SB 658 on water safety requirements for rental properties drew extensive testimony in support from child advocacy and drowning prevention advocates, who cited Florida’s high child drowning rates and the disproportionate impact on children with autism; the bill was amended to require front-end certification and remove local add-on authority, then passed favorably. CS/SB 18, a claim bill involving the estate of a deceased minor and the Broward County Sheriff’s Office, was reported favorably after questions about the verdict, settlement posture, and who would receive the funds. SB 934 on areas of critical state concern was amended to remove a provision viewed as conflicting with the Live Local Act and then passed favorably. SB 1622, which creates a one-time waiver for certain late-filed financial disclosure fines, also passed favorably with support from an appearance form. SB 1264 on private schools and zoning was reported favorably after members noted ongoing concerns and planned further discussion. CS/CS/SB 260 on electric vehicle storage in towing yards was amended to narrow the bill to storage issues and cap the fee period until inspection; it drew both support and opposition from insurers, fire officials, and vehicle industry representatives, and was reported favorably. CS/CS/SB 1014, dealing with municipal utility service to properties outside city limits, was amended to limit it to residential development and clarify capacity standards, then passed favorably. CS/SB 1102 expanded the local infrastructure surtax to include body camera programs and was reported favorably after an amendment requiring voter approval. Finally, CS/SB 1724 and SB 1566, both on local government utility and budget transparency, were amended and reported favorably despite concerns from cities and counties about implementation costs and burdens.

Transcript Highlights:

• Speaker, gentle lady, the Healthcare Affordability Fund is funded by that surcharge. Mr.
• Speaker, gentle lady, that surcharge, the majority of the...
• Whenever the federal government eliminated the surcharge on the premium on private market premiums...
• We're giving the small businesses who are actually generating the surcharge, those independent people
• We continue to apply surcharges here, surcharges there, and we're doing this in a year when we had a

Transcript Highlights:

• I just passed a bill that reinforces federal law that you cannot put a surcharge on a debit card.
• We do not believe that what is being charged qualifies as a surcharge.
• what is being charged to these citizens for the convenience of the service doesn't constitute a surcharge
• similar legislation, including Texas, I think, was pretty recent, does not qualify these costs as a surcharge
• It's still a surcharge, okay? So, I mean, we can talk about it.

Keywords: 974, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And so we would take in more surcharges from the nursing homes.
• And so this forecast assumes that those new surcharges, the add to the surcharges and the corresponding
• And so we would take in more surcharges from the nursing homes.
• And so this forecast assumes that those new surcharges, the add to the surcharges and the corresponding
• And so this forecast assumes that SOS new surcharges, the add to the surcharges in the corresponding

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• I just passed a bill that reinforces federal law that you cannot put a surcharge on a debit card.
• We do not believe that what is being charged qualifies as a surcharge.
• what is being charged to these citizens for the convenience of the service doesn't constitute a surcharge
• similar legislation, including Texas, I think, was pretty recent, does not qualify these costs as a surcharge
• It's still a surcharge, okay? So, I mean, we can talk about it.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Revenue and Fiscal Affairs met on May 28, 2026, approved the May 19 minutes, and then considered three third-party convenience fee schedules for online payments. The first was for the Department of Agriculture and Forestry, presented by Rebecca Dupree with Louisiana Interactive; members confirmed the online payment option would be voluntary and approved the fee schedule without objection. The second was for the Department of Health’s Safe Drinking Water Program, presented by Karen Benjamin, and generated extended discussion about a $2.50 flat fee plus a 2.5% card-processing charge, especially whether that charge would violate recently passed Senate Bill 254 regarding debit card surcharges. Senators Mizell, Lambert, and Luneau questioned the structure, and department representatives said they believed the fee was not a surcharge and that ACH payments would avoid the percentage charge; the committee approved the fee schedule but urged the department to review it for compliance with SB 254. The third fee schedule was for the Louisiana Office of State Fire Marshal, presented by Lindsay Savoy and Garrett Lee, covering online payments for the conveyance program and the Fire Emergency Training Academy. Senators again raised concerns about the 2.5% card charge in light of SB 254, and the presenters said they intended to comply with the new law and would discuss the issue further. The committee approved this fee schedule as well, with a similar reminder to consider the bill’s impact going forward. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• So at the same time of paying your tabs, the EV surcharge is imposed.
• A second change in this legislative modification was to expand the surcharge to also include plug-in
• , as Matt discussed, and added the plug-in hybrid electric vehicle surcharge.
• And that's part of the reduction on the surcharge.
• moment, you mentioned these surcharge charges are seeking to replace lost gas tax revenue.

Keywords: 1183, house